Re:"at war with my parents over who is in control"
on
Bringing Up Bill
·
· Score: 1
forced backwards compatibility
I certainly agree with most of the badness of the things that you cite except for the above. I think you have the direction wrong when you think of which way the force was for backward compatibility. It was not from MS to customers. It was the other way around.
MS had no choice but to support backward compatibility. Their desire to survive forced them into this position. Had they chosen to abandon it, their customers would have left them. It was customer demand for compatibility that kept it around.
Right, ok. AT&T wants to increase the price of their bandwidth. At which point, the blog, or the blog reader, or both will switch to someone who isn't increasing their price.
Is there not sufficient competition within ISP's to make that feasible?
Even if all the hullaballoo surrounding whether humans are the primary cause of global climate change or not, if we take actions now to stem wholesale dumping of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, whether it turns out that we have a huge impact on the global ecosystem or not, at least the world we leave behind will be cleaner and more hospitable for our children and future generations.
That might be true. However, it really depends on how much it costs abate C02 production. If the costs are too high, our children might be worse off being poorer and cooler rather than richer and warmer.
For example, the cost in lives that result from hurricanes in Florida is *MUCH* lower than the costs in lives of similar hurricanes (typhoons) in significantly poorer countries. There are a number of reasons for this, but they all result from the fact that we have more money to use to protect ourselves from hurricanes. It's clearly better to be richer with hurricanes than to be poorer and defenseless.
The same tradeoff has to be considered when thinking about how to deal with climate change. Are we better off being cooler & poorer or richer and warmer? So far as I can tell, it's just an assumption that "poorer and cooler" is better. But there are those who are skeptical.
Patri Friedman, grandson of [Nobel Laureate] Milton and son of anarcho-theorist David, is even today actively planning to launch artificial sea platform communities, which he's calling seasteads, currently hoping to start one in San Francisco Bay. That's the spirit of America, as John Adams never quite said: may I advocate classical-liberal limited government, so that my son may advocate anarcho-capitalism, and that my grandson may plan to build new artificial countries in the ocean.
I would presume that as a consultant, you're getting paid to tell someone else what to do. But the person to whom I was responding was belittling some guy because he suggested that some people might actually benefit from buying HP, epson, lexmark ink.
No offense, but that reasoning is just ignorant, short sighted, and wasteful in most situations.
No offense, but trying to tell other people what their goals are, or should be, is arrogant.
You don't like the primary vendor inks. I don't like them either. I think they're too expensive. In fact, I dislike the ink problem so much, that I've replaced all my printers with laser printers. But I'm not going to sit down and tell someone that it's wrong that they buy inkjets or vendor inks. I'll let them know that there are cheaper alternatives, if they want to know. But ultimately, it's entirely up to them how they respond to this.
Live your own life. Stop trying to tell someone else how to live theirs.
That is a battle a parent can *never* win against a determined teenager.
As a parent of 4 children, I must disagree with you. My children are *MUCH* more dependent on me than the other way around. If the teenager retaliates enough, I have the resources to change the locks on the doors.
That being said, of course, it would not be my preference to get to that point. My children will get more and more freedom as they get older. But that doesn't mean they'll get 100% freedom when they turn 18. It means that there will be certain basic rules for my house that will apply to them in exactly the same way they apply to adult guests (no drugs, be polite, talk to me if you have an issue that you need resolved, etc). But apart from those rules, the teenager will be expected to take care of him or herself. Which means things like:
Basic food will be provided. If you want something else, feel free to pay for it.
You want to use my internet connection? No problem. But I reserve the right to block it or completely disable your access, because I don't want to see some things on my network. Want your own network that you can put anything on? No problem. Pay for it.
Need transportation? I fully support that. You pay for it. You purchase the gas and maintenance. You purchase insurance. Want to borrow my transportation? No problem as long as you demonstrate that you're able to follow my rules regarding my property.
My point is this: as my children get older, they get more freedom. But they also get the consequences of their choices. In my experience, most teens are all about "freedom" but they assume it means geting to make choices without consequence. My comment to my children will be: good luck with that. And I'm pretty sure that's a battle I will always win in my house... (except, of course, with my wife).
Holy crap, I just realized that I have a *HUGE* trade deficit with the local grocery store. I purchase almost 100% of my food supplies from them and they purchase *NOTHING* from me! And my employer is in equally dire straights. They purchase a ton of service from me, and I only a tiny fraction of service from them. Dear heavens, the world may end!
</sarcasm>
Seriously, this is a non issue. If trade deficits were an issue, then the above trade deficits would also be an issue for you personally. But it so happens that having the above trade deficits makes you, the grocery store, and your employer wealthier by allowing you all to specialize.
As the father of four children under 10 years old, I don't mind the fact that there's sex and violence on TV. I love the rating system and I love the fact that I can restrict content based on that. But what bothers me (more than the content) are the commercials! My kids like sports. But I can't let them watch sports without supervising and watching with them. The commercials are insane! They contain every bit of sex and violence of the programs they advertise for right smack dab in the middle of a program that's supposed to be suitable for children!
I really don't have a problem with TV-MA/LSV rated shows being broadcast. I can filter them out easily enough. I have a problem with the commercials for those shows being broadcast during shows that are supposed to be more kid friendly. So, to combat this, I have a TiVo and I fast forward through commercials (or pause if I've caught up with live TV). The networks don't seem to like that, but they're part and parcel of having created it.
To me, the key information in this article is this:
"Those children who had little opportunity at school to undertake activity were bouncing around after school whereas those who'd had a lot of opportunity durin gthe course of the school day settled down, and did relatively little," [Professor Terence Wilkin] said.
"The most important thing (was) if you added the in-school activity to the out-of-school activity, they were exactly the same."
IMHO, this just demonstrates the hubris of government to think that we are all a bunch of pawns that they can manipulate on a chess board. We respond to incentives. Add an enforced activity in one area that.gov controls, and we will respond by reducing that activity in an area that.gov doesn't control. We each have our own taste for the preferred level of that activity. When it's increased somewhere else by force, we'll automatically decrease it somewhere else. And the impact will be that because we're forced to do something that we would normally do on our own, we start to dislike the activity because we associate the "enforced" part with the activity.
And this is not the only thing that this works for. Force us to wear seatbelts and we increase the level of risk taking that we take while driving. Why? Because the enforced reduction of risk through seatbelts allows us to feel relatively safe. And feeling safe, we will take risks elsewhere.
IMHO, this is a perfect example of the hubris of government. And I find it ironic that at the end of the article, it suggests repeating that hubris by regulating the food industry. If we are forced out of bad but convenient food that we freely choose, what consequence will it have? What choice will we make to increase our convenience? Will we choose not to eat at those restaurants because we don't like the taste of the new regulated foods that are available? Will that increase unemployment? Will that result in increased poverty levels? Good grief, these people need to study economics before they start making policy recommendations!
Back in the day, I worked as a sysadmin in a NASA AI/Robotics Lab. Your comment reminds me of what one of the researchers said to one of the other researchers who had a child: How's your natural intelligence project coming?
Yes, it's geeky. But it was pretty funny for a group of AI researchers.
It basically put US 10 years behind the rest of the world with regard to cell phones.
I know a lot of europeans who agree with this sentiment. I haven't spent a lot of time in europe so I'm unfamiliar with what it's like over there. However, looking strictly from a technological point of view CDMA (e.g. verizon, sprint, et al) seems to be much more innovative than GSM. With GSM everyone gets timeslices to use the air whether they're actually using it or not. With CDMA, only those who are talking use the air. As a result, with CDMA you get a *LOT* more people using the same frequency than you can with GSM. It's no surprise to me that EV-DO (highspeed data on CDMA networks) is much more widespread than is UTMS/HSPDA (highspeed data on GSM networks). The CMDA networks had a lot more bandwidth available. (*)
If it's true that CDMA is more innovative than GSM, then it's not true that the US is 10 years behind the rest of the world w.r.t. cell phones. The result of not having a mandated standard for how digital cell phone technology was to be used has been that the market was able to innovate. And the result is more efficient use of the bandwidth, which means that the scarcity of the airwaves is lower. Which means cheaper cell phone service is cheaper. Which means more bandwidth available for high speed data.
Personally, I prefer the market based solution.
(*) There are, of course, technical details that override this summary. The technical details are not the point.
No, I have no interest whatsoever in "maximizing alternative".
Oh. So you don't like people having alternatives. This belies a fundamental difference which I see no way to get beyond. I believe that individual freedom should not be impinged. You seem to be seeking to take that away.
You did say this, though:
And your inability to understand how both of those statements are true, does not make them false.
The "free market" does nothing to help me here...
The complaints of someone willing to take away others freedoms are worth less than nothing. There is nothing further to be gained from continued discussion with you. You may have the last word if you like. I'm done.
Ok. So let me understand the alternative. A universal charger is mandated through some sort of government action. You're telling me that this is the choice maximizing alternative? You're telling me that the cool new apple magnetic power connection should not be offered because it doesn't meet the mandated standard. You're telling me that every other new idea for a power connection should be summarily dismissed - even the ones that we can't think of right now. You (and a small number of people) don't have the "universal charger" that you so covet. But you'd rather that it be forcibly made available so that all other options can't be chosen. And this is the choice maximizing alternative that you have? If so, you and I don't agree on the definition of either "choice" or "maximizing".
I never intended to suggest that the free market "works perfectly". But it's significanly better than the alternative of government mandated solutions. The only reason that people are diluded into thinking that governmentally mandated solutions actually work is because they happily ignore all of the unforseen consequences of mandated solutions (e.g. reduced innovation, fewer choices).
I can see where the confusion is now. The thing that I meant to be emphasizing in that statement is that there's a contrast between a free market (which puts no one in control) and an engineered economy (which subjects most people's wants to the ideas of a few who decide what's good for them). The *ONLY* alternative to a free market is to tell people (whether they want it or not) this is what you're getting. Say what you want about the evils of a market, but the latter seems worse to me.
That being said, yes a lot of/.ers seem to be saying that they want universal chargers. But talk is cheap. What are they doing about it? They're continuing to buy devices that don't have universal chargers. They must not want the universal charger as much as some other feature of that device. So the slashdot folks are getting exactly what they want most - new features, and not getting what they don't appear to want very much - universal chargers. So when I say everyone gets what they want, I mean it. It doesn't mean they get everything they want. But with free markets, individuals prioritize for themselves whats important and get the things at the top of the list. The wealthier they are, the more things on the list they get. But no one, not even Trump, gets everything.
That being said, I would suggest this to you: if you believe that there is such large unmet demand for universal chargers, that's simply a market oppurtunity. I bet you could build a business retrofitting electronic devices for a universal charger. I find such a business to be foolish because I don't think the demand is high enough. But you seem to. Go for it, dude! If you're right, there's a fortune to be made. Good luck.
The market produced exactly what the consumers wanted through expressed demand. If the market produced something that consumers didn't want, they wouldn't buy it. Things that the market doesn't yet provide are not market failures. They're either one of two things: oppurtunities to fulfill unmet demand (which is always profitable) or unprofitible ventures (which implies insufficient market demand).
I'm sure that people want it. I paid a premium for my bluetooth headset because the one that I got uses the same charger as my cell phone. But it isn't enough that people want something. They have to express that want through their choices. They have to be willing to say to the laptop manufacturer: "no, I won't buy that new laptop because it won't work with my old charger". If they buy the laptop despite not being charger compatible, then some new feature of the laptop is more important than using a universal charger. And that's what the laptop manufacturer will sell.
Compatibility is clearly important in some areas of computing. For example, how many people compare the features of Mac OSX to Windows when they purchase a computer? Not many. Most simply ask whether the new computer will run their old software. In other words, compatibility matters, and a (mostly) universal OS is provided. Almost every PC manufacturer supports Windows, because the consumer demand for software compatibility is high.
I would argue that the expressed consumer demand for universal chargers just is not high on most people's lists. Most people (as opposed to the technorati) don't have 17 things that need charging. They have one: a cell phone. And the one charger they've got is fine.
If you're asking what I want to do, then I want a free market which allows me to choose what's important to me. But the market that exists in china is NOT free. So I don't get a choice as to what kind of connecter I get.
As soon as you ask the question "do you want...?" then the answer has to be a free market. Because that's the only thing that allows EVERYONE to get what they want instead of being subject to someone else's will.
So, the government mandates that all chargers must be USB. Which means that no one, not even apple, can create a new innovative power connection for charging things. If you believe that USB chargers are the best solution that anyone could ever come up with, then this is a good deal. But if you think that, I think you underestimate human creativity. The people under this rule will be precluded from freely being able to purchase new technology. And that's good, how?
The free market DOES produce the best results for the consumer. To quote one of my favorite bloggers:
Economics is a science. Willful ignorance or emotional rejection of the well-known precepts of this science is at least as bad as a fundamentalist Christian's willful ignorance of evolution science... In fact, economic ignorance is much worse, since most people can come to perfectly valid conclusions about most public policy issues with a flawed knowledge of the origin of the species but no one can with a flawed understanding of economics.
- Warren Meyer
I can neither support nor refute your claims about why people wish to immigrate to the United States. But let's assume that you're descriptions and motivations are correct. That it's the social programs that are drawing immigrants who desire a free ride. Isn't the appropriate response then to say that this is an unintended consequence of the social welfare programs and call into question the validity of those programs? It seems to me that continuing to support restrictions on immigration is an attempt to prop up social programs as if they had no consequences.
If what you're saying is true, that seems to me to be a knock against socialized welfare. Not something that should support restrictions on immigration. Is there something that I'm missing?
Full Disclosure: I'm a classic liberal (in contrast to a modern liberal) and I'm opposed to restricted immigration. I believe that we live in a country of endowed rights, not government granted rights. Which means that the government can neither give nor take away rights. Our rights have been endowed to us by our creator (using the language of the constitution). One of those endowed rights is the right to free association and to assemble peacably. Which means that Mexicans have it whether they're here or not. So do Chinese, Germans and Finlanders. The difference is that some other governments don't protect those rights, and in some cases, wrongly repress those rights. The US government is constituted on a promise to protect those rights within the boundaries of this country. So that when someone from Mexico or China or Germany or Findland sets foot in this country, our government is required to protect their rights to freely associate with any of us who are already here. Immigration laws are based on the premise that you only have those rights if you're a US citizen. In other words, the US Government grants them to you. I believe that's incorrect. I believe laws restricting immigration are counter to the concept of rights described by the constitution. I believe that all such laws should be overturned.
One of the impacts of immigration laws is to insulate the voting American public from the negative unintended consequences of social welfare programs. I believe that if the American public felt the full brunt of those unintended consequences, that we would make changes to the detrimental effects of those policies. But as long as those effects are hidden, there's less motivation to change the policies.
Immigration laws hurt us: they undermine our core values, and they insulate us from the effects of bad policies. I think we would be better off without them.
The greatest we know of - Newton and Einstein, all worked using established ideas, and often not alone (much of Newton's work was paralleled by Liebniz, and Newton followed Kepler). Einstein based much of his work on that of Maxwell.
Um. I don't think that's true. At least not for Einstein. It doesn't matter that Einstein based most of his work on Maxwell. What matters is whether or not consensus was a necessary component in coming to the truth. And I don't think it was. Quoting from Wikipedia:
Most astronomers did not like Einstein's geometrization of gravity and believed that his light bending and gravitational redshift predictions would not be correct.
But it was correct despite the consensus opinion to the contrary. More...
Many scientists were still unconvinced for various reasons ranging from the scientific (disagreement with Einstein's interpretation of the experiments, belief in the ether or that an absolute frame of reference was necessary) to the psycho-social (conservatism, anti-Semitism). In Einstein's view, most of the objections were from experimentalists with very little understanding of the theory involved. Einstein's public fame which followed the 1919 article created resentment among these scientists some of which lasted well into the 1930s.
I think Einstein is a perfect example that consensus can be wrong, and makes the point that Crichton was making. Consensus in science is not what determines the truth. Repeatable tests are what determine the truth.
Books can communicate more worlds more quickly and in more detail than any screen-based media (movies, television, video games, etc.).
I'm not sure that I agree with this. Books and video games are distinctly different in the activities that are developed in the mind. Steven Johnson describes the kind of thinking necessary in video games as "telescoping" and books are very bad at conveying that kind of thinking.
But even if I conceded that books could do what you say they can do, it's clear that the types of thinking necessary to successfully comprehend a book are different than the types of thinking necessary to comprehend a video game. Why is it that the "book thinking" is the only good type of thinking that should be developed and the "game thinking" (which is more exploratory and problem solving) is a bad type of thinking?
I think that they're both important types of thinking skills to develop. It's not that I think books are bad. I don't think video games will ever replace books, nor should they. But why do people think that video games and the thinking that they help develop are bad? Do we really think that experimentation is a bad skill to develop? Do we really think that problem solving is a bad skill to develop? Exploration and problem solving are hard skills to develop while reading a book. "Choose your own adventures" are like pong compared to video games at developing those skills.
I guess I'm still confused, but thanks for the response.
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly agree with most of the badness of the things that you cite except for the above. I think you have the direction wrong when you think of which way the force was for backward compatibility. It was not from MS to customers. It was the other way around.
MS had no choice but to support backward compatibility. Their desire to survive forced them into this position. Had they chosen to abandon it, their customers would have left them. It was customer demand for compatibility that kept it around.
Right, ok. AT&T wants to increase the price of their bandwidth. At which point, the blog, or the blog reader, or both will switch to someone who isn't increasing their price.
Is there not sufficient competition within ISP's to make that feasible?
That might be true. However, it really depends on how much it costs abate C02 production. If the costs are too high, our children might be worse off being poorer and cooler rather than richer and warmer.
For example, the cost in lives that result from hurricanes in Florida is *MUCH* lower than the costs in lives of similar hurricanes (typhoons) in significantly poorer countries. There are a number of reasons for this, but they all result from the fact that we have more money to use to protect ourselves from hurricanes. It's clearly better to be richer with hurricanes than to be poorer and defenseless.
The same tradeoff has to be considered when thinking about how to deal with climate change. Are we better off being cooler & poorer or richer and warmer? So far as I can tell, it's just an assumption that "poorer and cooler" is better. But there are those who are skeptical.
I would presume that as a consultant, you're getting paid to tell someone else what to do. But the person to whom I was responding was belittling some guy because he suggested that some people might actually benefit from buying HP, epson, lexmark ink.
No offense, but trying to tell other people what their goals are, or should be, is arrogant.
You don't like the primary vendor inks. I don't like them either. I think they're too expensive. In fact, I dislike the ink problem so much, that I've replaced all my printers with laser printers. But I'm not going to sit down and tell someone that it's wrong that they buy inkjets or vendor inks. I'll let them know that there are cheaper alternatives, if they want to know. But ultimately, it's entirely up to them how they respond to this.
Live your own life. Stop trying to tell someone else how to live theirs.
$.02.
Ok. So California implements retail price caps, then wonders why there's unbounded consumption?
Simple fix: get rid of the retail price caps.
That being said, of course, it would not be my preference to get to that point. My children will get more and more freedom as they get older. But that doesn't mean they'll get 100% freedom when they turn 18. It means that there will be certain basic rules for my house that will apply to them in exactly the same way they apply to adult guests (no drugs, be polite, talk to me if you have an issue that you need resolved, etc). But apart from those rules, the teenager will be expected to take care of him or herself. Which means things like:
My point is this: as my children get older, they get more freedom. But they also get the consequences of their choices. In my experience, most teens are all about "freedom" but they assume it means geting to make choices without consequence. My comment to my children will be: good luck with that. And I'm pretty sure that's a battle I will always win in my house... (except, of course, with my wife).
Holy crap, I just realized that I have a *HUGE* trade deficit with the local grocery store. I purchase almost 100% of my food supplies from them and they purchase *NOTHING* from me! And my employer is in equally dire straights. They purchase a ton of service from me, and I only a tiny fraction of service from them. Dear heavens, the world may end!
</sarcasm>
Seriously, this is a non issue. If trade deficits were an issue, then the above trade deficits would also be an issue for you personally. But it so happens that having the above trade deficits makes you, the grocery store, and your employer wealthier by allowing you all to specialize.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
As the father of four children under 10 years old, I don't mind the fact that there's sex and violence on TV. I love the rating system and I love the fact that I can restrict content based on that. But what bothers me (more than the content) are the commercials! My kids like sports. But I can't let them watch sports without supervising and watching with them. The commercials are insane! They contain every bit of sex and violence of the programs they advertise for right smack dab in the middle of a program that's supposed to be suitable for children!
I really don't have a problem with TV-MA/LSV rated shows being broadcast. I can filter them out easily enough. I have a problem with the commercials for those shows being broadcast during shows that are supposed to be more kid friendly. So, to combat this, I have a TiVo and I fast forward through commercials (or pause if I've caught up with live TV). The networks don't seem to like that, but they're part and parcel of having created it.
And this is not the only thing that this works for. Force us to wear seatbelts and we increase the level of risk taking that we take while driving. Why? Because the enforced reduction of risk through seatbelts allows us to feel relatively safe. And feeling safe, we will take risks elsewhere.
IMHO, this is a perfect example of the hubris of government. And I find it ironic that at the end of the article, it suggests repeating that hubris by regulating the food industry. If we are forced out of bad but convenient food that we freely choose, what consequence will it have? What choice will we make to increase our convenience? Will we choose not to eat at those restaurants because we don't like the taste of the new regulated foods that are available? Will that increase unemployment? Will that result in increased poverty levels? Good grief, these people need to study economics before they start making policy recommendations!
Back in the day, I worked as a sysadmin in a NASA AI/Robotics Lab. Your comment reminds me of what one of the researchers said to one of the other researchers who had a child: How's your natural intelligence project coming?
Yes, it's geeky. But it was pretty funny for a group of AI researchers.
I know a lot of europeans who agree with this sentiment. I haven't spent a lot of time in europe so I'm unfamiliar with what it's like over there. However, looking strictly from a technological point of view CDMA (e.g. verizon, sprint, et al) seems to be much more innovative than GSM. With GSM everyone gets timeslices to use the air whether they're actually using it or not. With CDMA, only those who are talking use the air. As a result, with CDMA you get a *LOT* more people using the same frequency than you can with GSM. It's no surprise to me that EV-DO (highspeed data on CDMA networks) is much more widespread than is UTMS/HSPDA (highspeed data on GSM networks). The CMDA networks had a lot more bandwidth available. (*)
If it's true that CDMA is more innovative than GSM, then it's not true that the US is 10 years behind the rest of the world w.r.t. cell phones. The result of not having a mandated standard for how digital cell phone technology was to be used has been that the market was able to innovate. And the result is more efficient use of the bandwidth, which means that the scarcity of the airwaves is lower. Which means cheaper cell phone service is cheaper. Which means more bandwidth available for high speed data.
Personally, I prefer the market based solution.
(*) There are, of course, technical details that override this summary. The technical details are not the point.
Ok. So let me understand the alternative. A universal charger is mandated through some sort of government action. You're telling me that this is the choice maximizing alternative? You're telling me that the cool new apple magnetic power connection should not be offered because it doesn't meet the mandated standard. You're telling me that every other new idea for a power connection should be summarily dismissed - even the ones that we can't think of right now. You (and a small number of people) don't have the "universal charger" that you so covet. But you'd rather that it be forcibly made available so that all other options can't be chosen. And this is the choice maximizing alternative that you have? If so, you and I don't agree on the definition of either "choice" or "maximizing".
I never intended to suggest that the free market "works perfectly". But it's significanly better than the alternative of government mandated solutions. The only reason that people are diluded into thinking that governmentally mandated solutions actually work is because they happily ignore all of the unforseen consequences of mandated solutions (e.g. reduced innovation, fewer choices).
I can see where the confusion is now. The thing that I meant to be emphasizing in that statement is that there's a contrast between a free market (which puts no one in control) and an engineered economy (which subjects most people's wants to the ideas of a few who decide what's good for them). The *ONLY* alternative to a free market is to tell people (whether they want it or not) this is what you're getting. Say what you want about the evils of a market, but the latter seems worse to me.
/.ers seem to be saying that they want universal chargers. But talk is cheap. What are they doing about it? They're continuing to buy devices that don't have universal chargers. They must not want the universal charger as much as some other feature of that device. So the slashdot folks are getting exactly what they want most - new features, and not getting what they don't appear to want very much - universal chargers. So when I say everyone gets what they want, I mean it. It doesn't mean they get everything they want. But with free markets, individuals prioritize for themselves whats important and get the things at the top of the list. The wealthier they are, the more things on the list they get. But no one, not even Trump, gets everything.
That being said, yes a lot of
That being said, I would suggest this to you: if you believe that there is such large unmet demand for universal chargers, that's simply a market oppurtunity. I bet you could build a business retrofitting electronic devices for a universal charger. I find such a business to be foolish because I don't think the demand is high enough. But you seem to. Go for it, dude! If you're right, there's a fortune to be made. Good luck.
The market produced exactly what the consumers wanted through expressed demand. If the market produced something that consumers didn't want, they wouldn't buy it. Things that the market doesn't yet provide are not market failures. They're either one of two things: oppurtunities to fulfill unmet demand (which is always profitable) or unprofitible ventures (which implies insufficient market demand).
I'm sure that people want it. I paid a premium for my bluetooth headset because the one that I got uses the same charger as my cell phone. But it isn't enough that people want something. They have to express that want through their choices. They have to be willing to say to the laptop manufacturer: "no, I won't buy that new laptop because it won't work with my old charger". If they buy the laptop despite not being charger compatible, then some new feature of the laptop is more important than using a universal charger. And that's what the laptop manufacturer will sell.
Compatibility is clearly important in some areas of computing. For example, how many people compare the features of Mac OSX to Windows when they purchase a computer? Not many. Most simply ask whether the new computer will run their old software. In other words, compatibility matters, and a (mostly) universal OS is provided. Almost every PC manufacturer supports Windows, because the consumer demand for software compatibility is high.
I would argue that the expressed consumer demand for universal chargers just is not high on most people's lists. Most people (as opposed to the technorati) don't have 17 things that need charging. They have one: a cell phone. And the one charger they've got is fine.
If you're asking what I want to do, then I want a free market which allows me to choose what's important to me. But the market that exists in china is NOT free. So I don't get a choice as to what kind of connecter I get.
As soon as you ask the question "do you want...?" then the answer has to be a free market. Because that's the only thing that allows EVERYONE to get what they want instead of being subject to someone else's will.
The free market DOES produce the best results for the consumer. To quote one of my favorite bloggers:
I can neither support nor refute your claims about why people wish to immigrate to the United States. But let's assume that you're descriptions and motivations are correct. That it's the social programs that are drawing immigrants who desire a free ride. Isn't the appropriate response then to say that this is an unintended consequence of the social welfare programs and call into question the validity of those programs? It seems to me that continuing to support restrictions on immigration is an attempt to prop up social programs as if they had no consequences.
If what you're saying is true, that seems to me to be a knock against socialized welfare. Not something that should support restrictions on immigration. Is there something that I'm missing?
Full Disclosure: I'm a classic liberal (in contrast to a modern liberal) and I'm opposed to restricted immigration. I believe that we live in a country of endowed rights, not government granted rights. Which means that the government can neither give nor take away rights. Our rights have been endowed to us by our creator (using the language of the constitution). One of those endowed rights is the right to free association and to assemble peacably. Which means that Mexicans have it whether they're here or not. So do Chinese, Germans and Finlanders. The difference is that some other governments don't protect those rights, and in some cases, wrongly repress those rights. The US government is constituted on a promise to protect those rights within the boundaries of this country. So that when someone from Mexico or China or Germany or Findland sets foot in this country, our government is required to protect their rights to freely associate with any of us who are already here. Immigration laws are based on the premise that you only have those rights if you're a US citizen. In other words, the US Government grants them to you. I believe that's incorrect. I believe laws restricting immigration are counter to the concept of rights described by the constitution. I believe that all such laws should be overturned.
One of the impacts of immigration laws is to insulate the voting American public from the negative unintended consequences of social welfare programs. I believe that if the American public felt the full brunt of those unintended consequences, that we would make changes to the detrimental effects of those policies. But as long as those effects are hidden, there's less motivation to change the policies.
Immigration laws hurt us: they undermine our core values, and they insulate us from the effects of bad policies. I think we would be better off without them.
My very educated mother just showed us nine ... hmmm...
Couldn't they have at least chosen something with a P since they've demoted Pluto?
But it was correct despite the consensus opinion to the contrary. More...
I think Einstein is a perfect example that consensus can be wrong, and makes the point that Crichton was making. Consensus in science is not what determines the truth. Repeatable tests are what determine the truth.
Or is there some other way to interpret this?
I would suggest that you read Steven Johnson's book Everything Bad Is Good For You. It presents a compelling case suggesting exactly the opposite of what you said.
$.02
I'm not sure that I agree with this. Books and video games are distinctly different in the activities that are developed in the mind. Steven Johnson describes the kind of thinking necessary in video games as "telescoping" and books are very bad at conveying that kind of thinking.
But even if I conceded that books could do what you say they can do, it's clear that the types of thinking necessary to successfully comprehend a book are different than the types of thinking necessary to comprehend a video game. Why is it that the "book thinking" is the only good type of thinking that should be developed and the "game thinking" (which is more exploratory and problem solving) is a bad type of thinking?
I think that they're both important types of thinking skills to develop. It's not that I think books are bad. I don't think video games will ever replace books, nor should they. But why do people think that video games and the thinking that they help develop are bad? Do we really think that experimentation is a bad skill to develop? Do we really think that problem solving is a bad skill to develop? Exploration and problem solving are hard skills to develop while reading a book. "Choose your own adventures" are like pong compared to video games at developing those skills.
I guess I'm still confused, but thanks for the response.